US plots ‘new liberation of Baghdad’

The Sunday Times ^ | April 16, 2006 | Sarah Baxter

[jmc1969]

THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed.

Strategic and tactical plans are being laid by US commanders in Iraq and at the US army base in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, under Lieutenant- General David Petraeus.

Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.

Helicopters suitable for urban warfare, such as the manoeuvrable AH-6 “Little Birds” used by the marines and special forces and armed with rocket launchers and machineguns, are likely to complement the ground attack.

According to defence sources the Americans could augment their forces with heavily armed AC-130 aircraft and F-16s.

“It will be the second liberation of Baghdad,” said Daniel Gouré, a Pentagon adviser and vice-president of the Lexington Institute, a military think tank.

Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell at the State Department, said a crackdown in Baghdad was one of the few ways in which a fresh Iraqi government could bind the new national army and prove its mettle.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, an expert on Iraq at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that while it was essential to bring Baghdad under control, he feared the Americans would leave the bulk of the fighting to the Iraqis and that a showdown could misfire.

“You would have to come down like a hammer on the Sunni areas of Baghdad and go house to house and nobody wants to do that,” Gerecht said. “It’s inevitably going to come and it’s going to be convulsive. The Americans will be there, but not in the numbers needed because American casualty rates will go up.”

[jmc1969]

This battle is going to be far bigger then the Battle of Fallujah when it happens. Though Marc Gerecht is right that if it was me I would bring in an extra division from Kuwait. It is going to be tough taking out the heart of the insurgency as well as the Madhi Army at the same time. And, Sadr is likely to start problems in Najaf and Basra at the same time.

[bnelson44]

ping

[softwarecreator]

The NYT is becoming about as trusted a source as Debka so I wouldn't put much stock in this.  What are they going to fight over, after all, there IS a civil war going on there, right?

[jmc1969]

This isn't from the NY Times.

[bnelson44]

No, it is from the Sunday Times which is "almost" a tabloid. Would be interesting if we had other sources.

[jmc1969]

We can't allow a militia that Sadr only moderately controls of thousands and thousands of young men as well as a large number of insurgent groups embeded in Western Baghdad continue in Baghdad unchecked. I have been saying for a long time we are going to have to deal with the Madhi Army as well as the insurgents in Baghdad.

[bnelson44]

I agree, just wondering if this is how it is going to come down. Oh well, we are talking about OPSEC here so we have to wait and see.

[jmc1969]

Luckly we today have an Iraqi Army to do most of the heavy lifting on the ground, but we will still have to do some of it as well as keeping other parts of Iraq quiet.

[WOSG]

An Iraqi blogger has been begging for literally years to make *ALL* of Baghdad a "green zone" ... it's a reasonable request and classic counter-insurgency.

A safe baghdad would mean winning the war, really.
There are no safe havens in small towns now, there is only insurgents in various cities like Baghdad and Ramadi, able to exist in the climate of general criminality and militia violence.

Take it out, and what remains of the insurgency will be hollow.

"It is going to be tough taking out the heart of the insurgency as well as the Madhi Army at the same time."

Then dont do it at once - go after the insurgency, while squeezing out Mahdi army slowly via softer means. (loss of power).

[jmc1969]

I suspect we will take the Sunni areas of Baghdad first and give the Madhi Army an ultimatum to stand down their militia and turn in their weapons. Some will and some won't.

[ModelBreaker]

and give the Madhi Army an ultimatum to stand down their militia and turn in their weapons. Some will and some won't.

I don't know why we haven't shot the little fat guy.

[RunningWolf]

I agree,

This is going to be the big one. When you mentioned Sadr, it also made me think of Iran.

I think ultimately we will prevail, for this time we will not cut and run. That is one thing G. BUSH don't do.

But the interim I cannot predict in more ways than I want to mention. By the end of 2006, we will be yet again in a different world.

H***, just load the Wolf up in a VNm era Cobra. We'll 'make it hot for Sadr'



Wolf

[MinorityRepublican]

This battle is going to be far bigger then the Battle of Fallujah when it happens.

BIgger than the Battle of Fallujah? How so?

U.S. Marines from the 1st Marine Division use a SMAW to assault an enemy position.

Date:	07 November–23 December 2004
Location:	Fallujah, Iraq
Result:	United States victory

Combatants

United States Military
Iraqi Security Forces

Iraqi insurgents

Commanders

Maj. Gen Richard F. Natonski

Unknown

Strength

8,000

2,000 - 3000

Casualties

92 KIA , 622 WIA (U.S)
8 KIA , 43 WIA
(Iraqi Forces)

1,200 dead , ? wounded

[MinorityRepublican]

[jmc1969]

Baghdad is a massive city of 8 million people, Fallujah is a middle sized city of about a quorter of a million.

Cleaning out Baghdad the way they are describing in the article could take 50 thousand or more US and Iraqi troops.

The Battle of Fallujah took less then 15 thousand troops.

[jmc1969]

Ping

[Allegra]

Hmm..I guess we're in for a little excitement.

Again.

[Allegra]

A safe baghdad would mean winning the war, really.

There are no safe havens in small towns now, there is only insurgents in various cities like Baghdad and Ramadi, able to exist in the climate of general criminality and militia violence.

Baghdad is the last gasp for the terrorists and they're focusing most of their efforts here now. They're clinging to an unrealistic hope that they can stop the government from forming. They know deep down that the government WILL be formed and will eventually be a success. No democracy happens overnight and this one is no exception.

What seems to slip the media's minds (I'm sure it's just an oversight on their part...yeah, right) is that there are many safe aeras in Iraq now. In some towns, such as Erbil, Kirkush, Al Kut and others, Americans can go unescorted to reastaurants and shops now. Baghdad and Al Anbar province remain unsettled and Anbar is getting better.

Things are far better now than they were a year ago and they keep moving forward. The problems to be ironed out are reducing and being addressed.

And that, faithful FReepers, is just one of the things the media is failing to tell you. ;-)

[Marine_Uncle]

Happy Easter to all that observe. Perhaps there is a plan along these lines to be carried out this summer.
In principle one could say it is inevitable that the capital of this country must be cleaned up if any form of permenant government is to take effect with credibility of all Iraqi.
Much may ride on who becomes PM,IM,DM. One thing the article brought out, is the Iraqi army and police would represent the main ground force. It would appear clear, the make up of forces must reflect that it is Iraqi forces taking back the capital and not foreign elements invading the city as liberators.
If. The ratio of insurgent attacks country wide do not change in any significant manner, that is, any great shift by insurgent forces into new areas for instance, then perhaps we do not need any addtional forces to be brought in.
One thing I am confident in, is that with the Iraqi army working so well now with our forces, they must have a good idea as just how much force would have to be applied in any given area. And surely this would also have to include areas outside of the capital that support the insurgency on a daily basis. For instance the triangle of death area towns south/sw,se of the capital as well as those in the north. As Allegra indicated, it is not like the Sunni are in all parts of the city, and I gather there are neighborhoods they may live in that really do not support any insurgency at this point.
We can never forget these areas as suppplanting this insurgency with safehouses, funding, weapon caches etc..
So this action will be more wide spread then one may imagine. But to have to bring in fresh troops unfamiliar with what their AOR, may not be in the cards. You want, at least IMHO, well seasoned troops who are intimately familiar with the particular area they will have to operate in.

In any case, perhaps it is to soon to enter into dialogs on some action that may not come to pass. For all we know thing in the next few months could change dramatically for the better, as the Iraqi forces along with US forces 24/7 root out remaining Baathists, and religious/terrorist based resistors.
With that, you all have a great day. Time for preparing for family visits at my end.

[Wiz]

THE American military is planning a “second liberation of Baghdad” to be carried out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed.

I would view this as a third liberation, first fighting the former Iraq Army, second for Operation Lightning/Thunder (if that would be counted as second), and this time to be the third. The ISF is not all trained yet, but now they are close to the objective of having 271,000 members, which will be a test case if the current objective of 271,000 ISF is enough for Iraq (Currently, there are more than 242,000). Anyways, I think this information should not have gone public. Some one in the Pentagon may have slipped his mouth. I always have a headache with the military tradition unable to keep secrets.